Individuals, groups and networks

During the FLNW trip, the participants’ adjusting to each other and interaction triggered different reactions, which, as I see it, depend on a number of factors such as our different backgrounds, awareness of the other or lack of it, experience in similar situations, previous and/or future expectations, the importance given to certain contexts, the number of people involved, perceived status, our own personalities and styles (and last but not least, Rose 🙂 the time of the day).

Different interpretations and explanations for certain behaviours were forwarded both by those more closely involved and onlookers (or readers). While in NZ, I tried to observe, feel, taste, hear as much as possible trying to capture it with my camera, not always very lucida.

I had not read much about the place or the people involved either as I wanted to have the pleasure of discovering them unfiltered, without preconceptions even though I know this is impossible as the detective is always immersed in the situation and we all view the world from behind our own tinted glasses. I am still slowly recovering from the full impact of the “ordeal”.

Konrad Glogowski frets about groups and wonders how to help his students to “develop strong and confident individual voices”.

Teemu Leinonen favours networked groups, whose participants gather to build an object or accomplish a definite goal or plan and analyzes different forms of collaboration in learning. From what I get, these groups would be groups of people in different locations and from different cultures working around the same issues and solving them locally according to their own context. A global “aim”, discussed locally and shared globally again. Teemu doubts learning can occur in open networks as Stephen suggests. Teemu Arina begs to disagree and throws in his two cents in the comment area.